Perhaps this video will shed a bit of light.
Thanks, Iris, from a VetWhen it first came out, a lot of people likened it to a “hole in the ground”. (It’s a V-shaped “divot” in which the top of the wall seen from one side is simply ground-level on the other. The ends of the wall away from the angle slope progressively so that the two ends are at ground level). To a lot of people that was disrespectful. It’s not as if it was a black Clarkian monolith with the names engraved on it. )
The design was castigated as soon as it was announced. I don’t think it was race: people hated it just looking at the pictures of the mockup.
Then it opened. Everyone loved the design (even those who hated it originally).
From Merriam-Webster:
Even allowing that a plaque could be made out of other materials than metal or wood, a flat stone surface with a bunch of names on it is not a plaque. And the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is much more than just the part of the walls that have the names inscribed. It was the overall design of the memorial that was criticized, not the fact that it commemorated the names of those killed in the war.
Lin’s original design did not include the names. They were added by the committee - and they were right. That’s what makes The Wall essentially a grave marker, among other things, for many who didn’t come back, and even some who did. The choice to put the names in chronological order also means the dead “rest” with those they served with.
According to this, having the names was an original requirement before any designs were submitted.
This is incorrect. From Maya Lin’s original competition submission for the design
The names were always part of Lin’s design. The Committee added the two inscriptions on the two panels at the junction of the two walls, as outlined in this interesting article: http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_3_urb-vietnam-veterans-memorial.html
Towards the end of the article, Lin is quoted as being inspired by the memorial at Yale which lists the names of Yale grads who died in various wars.
Great article, thanks for posting it.
It has writing on it, and the writing is a reminder of a historical event.
So what? What has that got to do with the design, which is what we’re talking about?
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make with your posts. This is the exchange that started this:
Alessan’s post really is a non sequitur here (putting aside the issue of whether or not names on a wall might be considered a plaque). The names are just one element of the design. Alessan mentions only that while completely ignoring the elements of the design that might be considered nihilistic, that is, the black color, the appearance of being sunken in the earth, and simple geometric shapes instead of human figures or other sculptural elements.
I’m not saying anything at all about whether it’s nihilistic. I was just responding to your statement that it’s not a plaque with the names of the dead. Maybe that plaque is nihilistic, or maybe the way it’s arranged relative to its environment is, or whatever, but I’m not commenting on that.
In other words, an irrelevant nitpick.
However, even as a nitpick, it’s wrong. A wall with engraved names is not a plaque, as per the definition I cited. If you can produce a citation for another definition under which a very large flat stone wall with names engraved on it constitutes a plaque, please do so.
I remember the controversy as having racist elements. Overall, though, it was like politics today. You can’t deny that the party split has racist elements but those are part of much larger and broader hostilities.
What impressed me most when I visited it (before the added statues) was the sense of entering a space. Even though one side is completely open, you feel enveloped by the aura the memorial surrounds itself with. That’s a world-class achievement. I suppose some blinkered minds could invert that feeling to a “gash.” The world abounds with that mindset.
In any case… plaque, slab, stela, wall – a flat surface with the names of the fallen, I got what was the intent behind the word. The design did, as mentioned, change a paradigm about memorial monuments. Though in some cases the slavish devotion to the polished-black slabs seems not well thought out (the Police Memorial down the block from my office turned out kind of fugly).
And the story of the WTC/Ground Zero memorial, or the FDR memorial, shows us that even onto our days you walk into a hornet’s nest of controversy when it comes to memorials and monuments because there will always be a large sector of the public who’ll say “you’re doing it wrong”; “you’re not honoring what WE remember as worth honoring”. In the case of the Vietnam memorial there was some heat along the lines of: “Oh, sure, make it all about mourning the dead, oooh, war bad, bad war. No mention to the living of ‘good job, you did your duty, be proud’? Oh, no, it’s all about what a terrible thing this was. Alright, who designed it, some un-American hippie committee?” Remember, this was much closer to the historic event than other memorials. Dedicated less than 10 years after the formal end of the US war role, and a little over seven years after the last helicopter took off from the roof in Saigon. So there were a lot of people still around alert and strong and rarin’ to pick up the argument about what it all meant.
That the actual veterans embraced it ended up deciding the issue through the “boots on the ground”, so to speak.
(Now I’m curious as to from where did **ElvisL1ves **get the story that there were no names originally, when the design requirements mandated the names.)
Reliance on memory. Never a good idea.
I remember clearly that one of the VERY few conservative commentators who LOVED the design was James J. Kilpatrick, whom many of you many remember as the curmudgeon who used to debate Shana Alenxander in the “Point/Counterpoint” segment of 60 Minutes. His take was that there are hundreds or thousands of old-school war memorials gathering moss and pigeon poop in towns all over America, monuments nobody pays the slightest attention to. Maya Lin’s monument, he said, was different and packed a true emotional wallop.
I still stand by the “modernist cliche” opinion, but it’s very clear that millions of Americans, vets and otherwise, agree with Kilpatrick.
I’m still not getting why any of that is contentious. When I think of a war memorial I think of something like this, and the Vietnam memorial is just the same thing writ large.
Refer back to astorian’s and my last posts - there were a bunch of people who did not want a memorial to the dead but a “Dagnabbit, the hippies were wrong, it was a great and glorious effort, America #%*$ yeah!” monument; and a lot of people who thought minimalist modernism is just wrong for this sort of application.
The Vietnam Memorial was always going to be contentious, because the view of the war differed so radically among different parts of the population. Certainly many other memorials have featured names inscribed on a slab. However, as in the one you linked to, theyrise up from the groundand so have an element of triumph as well as solemnity. Also, most memorials feature patriotic elements as in the one you show.
The Vietnam Memorial lacks any of that. IIRC, it has nothing but the names. No flags, no patriotic symbols. But probably the most significant thing is that it does look like it’s sunken in the earth rather than being freestanding.
It was because of this lack of traditional elements that the statues of three soldiers was added to the memorial.